Rajasthan Court September 1951 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bhoransingh Vs. Revenue Board of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Raj4
Ranawat, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts of this case are that Surajmal and Rawti filed an application under Section 7 of the Rajas-than Tenants' Protection Ordinance in the court of the special Sub-divisional Officer, Bharatpur, for reinstatement on the land khasra Nos. 87, 88, 91, 95 and 120 in Tahsil Rupbas on the ground that they were in possession of the land on the 1st of April 1948, and that they were dispossessed by the landlords on the 20th of July 1949. The Special Sub-divisional Officer at first allowed the application of Surajmal and Rawti, but after further enquiry rejected it. Surajmal and Rawti then filed a revision application in the Rajasthan Board of Revenue and their application was allowed, on the 22nd March 1951, and they were ordered to be put in possession of the disputed land. This application has been filed against the judgment of the Rajasthan Revenue Board dated the 22nd March 1951. 2. The petitioner has ...
Ram Nath Vs. Kalu Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Raj10
Sharma, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendant Ram Nath against the judgment and decree of the District Judge Jhunjhnu. The case was instituted on the 19th May 1945 and was decreed on the 10th March 1948 by the Civil Judge, Jhunjhnu. The defendant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge in the Court of the District Judge, Jhunjhunu. Before the district Judge an objection was taken by the defendant that under Clause 11 (2) of Jaipur Rent Control Order 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Jaipur order') a certificate from the controller was necessary. This objection was overruled and the appeal was dismissed. Against this judgment and decree of the District Judge, the defendant has come in second appeal.2. The appeal raises a short but important point of law. On behalf of the appellant, it has been argued by Mr. Agarwal that according to Sub-clause 2 of Clause 11 of the Jaipur Order the suit of the nature referred to in Sub-clause 1 of Clause 11 institute...
Kishan Lal and anr. Vs. Bhanwar Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj81
Bapna, J.1. This is an appeal by Kishanlal and Satya Narain, minors under the guardianship of their mother, against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of the former Jodhpur State, dated the 24th of September, 1949. The applicants were plaintiffs in suit No. 49 of 1945-46, which was decided on the original side of the High Court of the former Jodhpur State. After the decision of the Division Bench, there was an application to the High Court for leave to appeal which was granted. That is how the present appeal has come up before us.2. The plaintiffs' suit was for recovery of Rs. 10,342/3/3. The plaintiff owned two firms, one in Jodhpur, called Kan Mal Suraj Mal and the other in Indore, called Kan Mal Kishan Lal, and both these firms were acting as commission agents. The plaintiff's' case was that the defendant, Bhanwar Lal, who is a resident of Jodhpur, entered into certain forward transactions in bullion with their Indore Firm. These transactions resulted in a loss, a pa...
Phoolchand Vs. Motilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj128
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is a revision application by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the Judge, Small Causes, Jaipur City. The pontiff and the defendant are co-sharers in a certain property in village Nevta. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant raised a sum of Rs. 237/- from the tenants of the parties, out of which the plaintiff is entitled to one-third share. He, therefore prayed that a decree for Rs. 77/13/9 on account of his share be passed. The defendant pleaded, inter alia, that the suit was not cognisable by a Civil Court, but it was within the exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Courts. The Learned Lower 'Court did not record any finding on this point and decreed the suit holding it to be within time. The defendant appeals and one of the points raised is that the suit was not cognisable by a Civil Court.2. I have heard the learned counsel forboth the parties. To my mind the present suit comes under Section 100 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act which provides that a c...
Nathmal Vs. the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj46
Bapna, J.1. This is a petition for issue of a writ of certiorari in respect of a case decided by the Board of Revenue.2. One Nuruddin filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage of certain agricultural land against Nathmal, in the Court of Nazim, Nimbahera. The Nazim decreed the suit for redemption subject to payment of Rs. 701/- by the plaintiff. Nathmal filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Udaipur who transferred it to the Additional Commissioner, and the latter allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Nuruddin had died in the meantime and Khawaja Hussain and others, legal representatives of said Nuruddin, filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. It was set for hearing before Shri Lal Sinha Saktawat, Member, Board of Revenue, who after hearing the parties did not agree with the Additional Commissioner and passed judgment on 22nd of September 1950 upholding the decision of the Nazim of Nimbahera. The operative portions of his judgment is:'For these reasons as given abo...
Sanmukhdas Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1256
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. This is an application in revision from the order of the trial court by a surety forfeiting his bond Under Section 514 of the Cr.P.C. The contention of the surety is that the bond had not been taken strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law as laid down Under section, 499 of the Cr.P.C. and that, as such, it was void and could not have been forfeited. It is alleged that the accused had not entered into any personal bond as required Under Section 499 of the Cr.P.C. The counsel for the surety for this relies on the rulings as cited in Govind Chandra v. State AIR 1951 Cri 18 & Chamra Meher v. State of Orissa AIR 1951 Cri. 179. The perusal of these rulings however, goes to show that no personal bond had in fact been taken from the accused concerned in those cases.3. In the present case the perusal of the record of the trial court goes to show that the accused was ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in the...
Ramchandra Vs. Bhairon Buksh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1951
Reported in: 1954CriLJ349
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is an application by Ramchandra and three others of village Sakat Tehsil Rajgarh to revise the order of Shri Naina Nand Jain, Magistrate first class, Raj Garb, under Section 145, Criminal P. C.2. The opposite party Bhalron Bux (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant) filed an application under Section 145, Criminal P. C. that he secured from Tehsil Rajgarh a decree for possession of land No, 1875/314 on 17-4-1949 and was put in possession of the same on 23-4-1949. Thereafter he gave the land on 'Batai' to Raghunath and Gangli. When they went on 18-7-1949 to plough the land, they were driven out by Ram Chandra and others (hereinafter to be referred to as the applicants) by threat and show of force. It was, therefore, prayed that the land might be taken in possession of the Court and the applicants be bound to keep the peace and possession might then be restored to the complainant. The matter was referred to Police, who reported on 22-7-1949 that the appl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›